From Francis Eyre
ALS: Library Company of Philadelphia
Surry Street 24. Feb. 1761.
I wrote you an Account on the 20th. of January of Mr. Moore’s Act being that Day referred to the Board of Trade.5 Since which the Board of Trade have referred it with several other Pensilvania Acts to their Counsell Sir Mathew Lambe, And as this is a private Act he makes a seperate Report thereon, for which I have already payd him his Fee of five Guineas, And as he is satisfyed that the Proprietor dos not oppose it (for he brought it in himself with other Acts) he on Wednesday last promised me his Report thereon in a few Days, which I hope will be the Middle of next Week;6 And if he finds no Difficulty in Point of Law, the Bill will afterwards pass easily; if he has any Difficulty, which he dos not seem to have, I must attend him in a more solemn Manner to remove it, but the lighter I make of it, the less Reason I have to suppose he will starte any such. I shall give it all the Dispatch I possibly can, when it comes from him, and I shall quicken him also, if he keeps it long. I am Sir Your most obedient humble Servant
Addressed: To / Benjn. Franklyn Esqr.
5. See above, pp. 271–2, for Eyre’s letter and an explanation of the act in favor of Moore and Richard Hill.
6. Lamb delayed his report to the Board of Trade until May 19, and then reported on this act and four others together. He raised no objections to any of them “in point of law,” even though this one, as a private act, failed to contain a clause, required in such cases by royal instructions, suspending its effect until the King’s approbation had been secured. Statutes at Large, Pa., V, 648–9.